J. Randall Murphy
Exactly. The age based analogy is better because it uses your premise of impairment, but rather than a choice based cause like consuming an intoxicant, it uses a natural factor ( age ), which has a closer relationship with other natural factors like a disease that few people choose to purposefully get infected with, and because COVID-19's relationship to mortality is primarily age based, there is more of a correlation between old-age and risk in both COVID-19 stats and increased risk because of impairment due to age.Why is it better? It involves a choice, and the primary consequence of the decision making is how hurt other people get. I don't like the age based analogy, because age isn't a choice.
Like I said, we already pay into an insurance system for healthcare. I'm all for that. What I'm not in favor of is these extra measures brought in by the Emergency Measures Act.But let's go back to insurance, because it's mandatory if you're going to drive on public roads, and it's there primarily to protect other people from you accidentally harming them.
Interesting that you should go there. With things like smoking, people are making a conscious choice that is within their direct control, at least until they become hopeless addicts and need intervention. However, people don't consciously make a choice to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. And besides that, smokers already do pay a fee in taxes.Sure, why not though? Isn't that kinda what public healthcare is? And the fact that we all pay for it kinda does mean that we should innately care what other people do that could harm others... or even themselves. Like, say, smoking. I would be just fine with smokers paying more for Alberta Health Care. Or obesity. Or other high risk lifestyle choices.
It's harming all kinds of people by destroying their livelihoods and reducing our overall quality of life. As I've already said, they have the potential to cost more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself. Literally millions of otherwise healthy productive people are suffering as a result right now, and seriously credentialed experts say it just not necessary. So why isn't that part not getting through?Why not? I mean, who exactly is it harming? Please don't fall back on the old tired 'slippery slope' kinda argument.
That's just it. We already have that insurance. It's called AHCIP and it covers all kinds of things, including COVID-19 and things more deadly than COVID-19, without the need for invoking Emergency Measures.Just like with auto insurance, right? Same deal. Maybe we could have "I don't want to wear a mask" insurance? (I'm kidding).
As I've said before, the charts are misleading, and I've explained why. So instead of simply repeating that you think the charts aren't misleading, what we need to do is dig into that data to get a more objective picture. I've dug into it as far as I can on my own with the Internet as a resource, and that research definitely gives cause for concern. Is it proof? No. But neither are the graphs and models being pushed by the PTB "proof" either.Again, the charts above are exceptionally clear evidence in my mind that those things aren't reasonable enough. Without the bylaws, cases spiked to 3x what they were when we locked down the first time. With the bylaws, they come back down. Kinda QED, isn't it?
The thing about appeals to authority is that they're in the grey basket when it comes to logical fallacies. In this case the authorities in question are impeccably credentialed academics, backed by thousands more, compared to a relatively few in positions of political power. Both have a certain amount of reasonableness in their rationale, and I'm not one of the big "plandemic" or "scamdemic" conspircay theorist.Is it though? I mean, the rest of the world broadly thinks it's unreasonable. I know that's an appeal to authority kinda argument, but so is your argument, so even though those people agree with you, more seem to agree with me, so... I'm not sure that gets either one of us anywhere, because as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Or it can be right.
I just see an obvious disconnect between those who were in favor of the lockdowns and those who aren't, so that makes me curious, and when I look into it as an intelligent person, I see that there is room for improvement based on the concerns of both sides.
At last. I'll take moment out here to pour me some lemonade.Right. That's the social contract. I'm with you.
The number of cases isn't the problem. It's the number of hospitalizations, and then the number of those who don't survive. When we look deeper into this situation. that's when the sorts of questions I've been asking come into play, but are very hard to get accurate data on. However what it looks like is that the numbers on mortality are misleading, as well as the numbers on our capacity to deal with the numbers of cases.I'm also with you. I also practice martial arts (before covid), and my risk tolerance is actually quite high. My concern is not fear for myself or even really my family, who is all healthy, but for the math of the situation - geometric progression due to the 1.1+ infection rate.
It seems to have worked in New Zealand, where according to the news the other day, there were zero active cases. So maybe if things had gone that way voluntarily, it might be over. But even then, the stats on COVID-19 aren't so bad that such drastic measures are necessary across the board.Sure. My view is that if we take the lockdown seriously, and do it harshly, it will be over sooner. Which means we can all get back to whatever normal is going to look like after this.
This is a disease that healthy people recover from fairly quickly, and virtually all those who don't have some preexisting condition or have exceeded their normal lifespan, so if it wasn't specifically COVID-19 that was pinpointed as the cause, it would be some other disease or form of pneumonia that does them in. So why destroy the lives of millions of healthy people to "protect" the vulnerable, when it's only the vulnerable that need protecting?
What you're forgetting is that the whole "flatten the curve" strategy is a trade-off where we deal with more cases over a shorter time span for the disease, versus the same number ( or more cases ) over a longer time span that is more manageable given the system we have to manage it.Dragging our heels on this likely means that we will have more damage to undo, like very slowly peeling a bandaid off. Might as well rip that sucker off and get on with things.
So given the stats, we could have just as easily done nothing but exercise stringent controls on the high-risk segment of society, and let the rest go about their daily business, in which case by now we'd be well into the downside of the curve, the costs would be far less, nobody would have lost their livelihoods, or homes, or business. People wouldn't be so depressed and committing suicide, there would be no need for fines and enforcement, and fewer of the high-risk population would have died. How does that not sound like a better strategy?
Yes I completely agree. There needs to be a well-reasoned system of checks and balances, and I am perfectly fine with universal healthcare. It's the going beyond that to these extremes that may cost society more than it saves that I'm concerned about.Right, but it isn't your risk really to take here, isn't it? Couldn't the same line of thinking apply back to "you're willing to take the risk that you're going to go bankrupt or die if you get sick" (therefore privatized healthcare) or "you're willing to take the risk of driving without insurance and going bankrupt" (therefore no need for car insurance), etc. Kinda the US-style far-right individualism that's reaching it's conclusions right now. All of that conveniently forgets that no person is an island, right? What I do to myself actually does impact you slightly through the economy and other factors, and sometimes what I do to you impacts you directly (if I injure you in an auto accident without insurance).
I just knew it was in there somewhereI'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself